Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-18


to all forms of sumptuary legislation
and ought to be, aHd no party will ever
be formed in this republic tnat isn't op-
posed to such laws. Sumptuary laws
are those which regulate personal ex-
penses, individual dress, diet, etc.
Democracy permits the greatest amount
OF personal liberty to the individual con-
sistent with the common good, and yet
| Democracy eGacts prOhIbitOrY laws in
voIVlng regulation of personal expense
Wnen II prevents gaming and opium
! smoking and so on. The law does not
] even permit woman to dress in a GER
tain way, as in mans ClOt ing, and vice
versa. Why is this regulation of dress,
| If not that such sumptuary law is absO-
| lutely needed for the common good?
| Talk about regulating personal
habits. Why does the law pre-
vent meR from walking or rid
ing with prostitutes on the streets?
or buying 'futuTes?' or using certain Ian
guage in certain places? Behind this
amendment is no Spartan, or Roman, or
English, or French tyrant, enacting reg
uIatIon OF personal expenses or habits,
out 1t Is question: Has the sale of in
toXICatlng liquors under the present sys-
tenn become such an evil as to demand
prohibition! Liquor is an evil; the
law recognizes this IN the regulations
now on the statute books; are those
regulations sufficient, or do we need more
rigid measures? That is the question.
The evil affects all; the poverty and the
crime aud the influence of class interests
IN elections effect all; now, shall all
suffer on, or shall the individual surren-
der more to the common good? That is
the question. To predicate some future
assault on tobacco or conscience as a
consequence OF the passage of this amend
ment is ignorance or design. This is not
sumptuary measure, it is not raid of
the church, it is s question whether or
not the prohibitOry principle now spilled
to liquor selling on certain days shall be
eXtended-whether this has become q
needed form of regulation of the traffic
which breeds disease, poverty ana crime,
and thus adds TO the common bur
den? The convention at Galveston was
honest and wise, and it could have in
Guided the usual plank in opposition to
sumptuary laws without inconsistency
with the plank which declared prohibition
to be matter for individual decision.
Much of all this Outcry against prohibit
ton is due to the hold the liquor traffic
has gained on the country. License for
100 years has habituated men to the idea
that drinking in public saloon is per-
s0ual liberty which it would be dangerous
to curtall or prohibit, regardless OF the
extent of the evil. Added to this is the
increasing influence of the traffic which is
ever organized and powerful, and which
is pitiless IN its political revenges on those
who oppose it. This traffic is as
much of an organized class interest
M Of yErhT Of II faFv DrrN
its actions are most perCeptible in con-
ventIons and elections. This Is human
nature, but while all parties TO the social
compact ca1 understand the cause of
this, it is now to be seen whether the
power Of this organized class interest
will! be strengthened to hereafter strike
down aSpirants ia conventions and Candi-
dates at the polls by the defeat Of this
proposed amendment. Had gaming,
pistol carrying, opium smoking, Sunday
selling, etc, etc, nsd any suCI powerful
organized interest to cry out personal
liberty and 'sumptuary law when any of
these things was made nahum prOh.bi-
tum all of them might now be free to
the individual desire. The traffic
mas not only become an
evil, but an evil power and power for
evil. 1t would be entertaining 10 listen
to really intelligent born Democrat
labOring with the question of the differ
ence in principle between license, Sun
day law, Indian Territory, local option
and prOhiOitOry regulation Of this evil
an evil admitted to be such, both in fed
eral and state, laws. There can be no es-
cape from the conclusion that tae only
question is whether the universally
recognized evil is best remedled by pr
hibitiOu, and the talk Of Democracy, per
sonal liberty, sumptuary law, union of
church and state, etc, is mere sound and
fury, signifying nothing. But l have
said enough
Meeting talented young man The
GAZETTE said: "Tell me how you stand
on prohibition?"
81 am for it," said he.
"Wel, how do you view it; in what as
peCt does it present itself?"
"This is purely social question. 1t
has no place in politics or religion. Those
PrOhibitiOpists who endeaVOr to bring
the Bible to their support are equally
mistaken with those Observation-Disclosures
who endeavOr to identify themselves with
the Democratic party as True Blues
The only question to be asked is, will it
promote the welfare of the state to sup
press the traffic in intoxicating
liquors? The man who IS
convinced that it will do
so is lacking in patriotism if he fails to
give his support to prohibition. If he
thinks it will not, then he may oppose
prohibition, no matter what his party or
creed. The talk about prohibition being
an usurpatiOn Of individual right Is mere
chaff. If Oy "individual right we are to
understand the natural rights of man, or
such as belong 10 him in a state of ma
ture, then it may be 50 considered; but
as by the social compact men have sur
rendered portion of their natural, indi-
vidual rights for the good Of the whole,
they must be content to give up
whatever is considered necessary for
the public good. There is but one author
ity to define what is so necessary, and
that is the social organization itself, which
makes its will known through the deter
minatiOn of the majority of its members;
therefore this majority says that certain
persons shall not debauch its members by
selling them whisky, 1t Is morally and
politically right to decree the abolition Of